By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, January 02, 2020
A bad cop in Herington, Kan., has become an ex-cop after
perpetrating a hoax in which he alleged that a McDonald’s employee wrote the
words “f***ing pig” on a cup of coffee before giving it to the officer. The
incident was, like so many of these, made up.
It was of course impossible for the man in question
(whose name has been withheld by the department, which does not expect to
charge him with a crime) to continue as a police officer — a man who will
falsify evidence in a scandal might be expected to falsify evidence in a crime,
and he lied to his superiors when asked about the incident. The hoax follows a
similar genuine episode at a Starbucks, which resulted in the firing of a
server.
I hope somebody on MSNBC will ask the Reverend Al
Sharpton about that. Sharpton proved himself one of the great hoax artists in
American public life during the Tawana Brawley affair, in which Sharpton did
his best to whip up anti-police hysteria over a rape that never happened.
Unfortunately, the Reverend Sharpton, whose broadsides against Jewish
“bloodsuckers” at a funeral bedecked with a banner reading “Hitler Did Not Do
the Job” preceded the Crown Heights riots, was busy lecturing New Yorkers on
anti-Semitism.
Politicized rape accusations have become disturbingly
common: Lena Dunham and her fiction about that College Republican at Oberlin, Rolling
Stone’s rape fiction treating a UVA fraternity as a stand-in for
“patriarchy” at large, the Duke lacrosse case, etc.
The politically motivated rape hoax is a particularly
heinous subgenre of outrage-theater hoax. Much more common is the phony hate
crime: Jussie Smollett encountering a couple of Trump-loving gay-hating white
supremacists who just happened to be big enough Empire fans that they
recognized him on the streets of Chicago in the middle of the night and who
just happened to have a noose and a gallon of bleach handy, who turned out to
be a couple of Nigerians who worked with the actor; the anti-gay and “Heil
Trump!” graffiti painted at an Indiana church by the church’s organist, a gay
Democrat fixated on Trump; former NFL player Edawn Coughman painting racist
slurs, swastikas, and MAGA on a business he owned; dozens and dozens of
episodes at universities, etc. A few months ago, the media were atwitter and
tut-tutting as hard as they could over a racist attack on a black girl at a
school where the vice president’s wife teaches, with figures such as U.S.
representative Rashida Tlaib doing their best to politicize the episode —
which, as it turns out, never happened.
Wilfred Reilly, a professor of political science at
Kentucky State, found that fewer
than a third of the hate crimes he studied were legitimate.
What, exactly, is at work here?
One factor is that conservatives who warned about the
“cult of victimhood” in the Eighties and Nineties were right. The mantle of
victimhood has many uses: There are careers to be made out of professional
victimhood, from cat’s-paw op-ed columnists to associate deans of this and that
and whole vast swathes of human-resources departments. Underperforming
employees worried about their prospects of advancement or continuing employment
wrap themselves in protective victimhood. Grifters such as Elizabeth Warren
cynically exploit the genuine suffering of grievously wronged people to advance
their own careers and interests, which is how the milky complexioned lady from
Oklahoma became a “woman of color” at Harvard Law.
But the more important factor here is the mutant
tribalism that infects our political discourse in the age of social media,
which, properly understood, is not discourse at all but antidiscourse,
communication designed not to enable the exchange of ideas and views but to
prevent genuine meaningful exchange. It is a status game, one in which
political speech serves not to communicate but simply to raise or lower the
relative status of rival social groups. This is why Lena Dunham, who thinks of
herself as a kind of feminist, invented a story about being raped by a College
Republican, not by a College Socialist, and why other rape hoaxes have targeted
fraternities and sports teams rather than environmental groups or the campus
chess club. The strategy at work is one of smear by association.
Those of us who are involved in public issues and
controversies have in the age of social media grown used to this sort of thing.
In my own case, I’ve seen tweets alleging to be from me that were obviously
made up out of whole cloth; NARAL made an absurd claim that I had gone on Morning
Joe and offered an unhinged tirade about lynching people (since repeated
elsewhere), which was a pure fabrication; Matt Bruenig, sometime Atlantic
contributor, manufactured a quotation in which I defended the racist antics of
Donald Sterling, of whom I had never heard and about whom I had never written
one word. These were not “selectively edited” or “taken out of context”—they
were made up.
These lies and fabrications are sometimes defended on the
grounds that they illustrate a “larger truth,” one that is somehow not
illustrated by the facts. The real argument for them is that people are so sure
that the people they hate deserve to be hated that they believe they have moral
license to lie about them.
The more subtle form of the same dynamic is what really
sustains media bias. Ramesh
Ponnuru points to a textbook example of this in the case of Katherine
Stewart and Caroline Fredrickson’s attack on Bill Barr in the New York Times,
which asserts that the attorney general is beholden to some daft “Christian
nationalist” philosophy to which he refers to in “code” when he speaks of
“religious liberty.” They offer no evidence for this nonsense, because there
isn’t any. The authors, Ponnuru writes, “offer no evidence that Barr secretly
shares their own view of what religious liberty is and isn’t and is merely
cynically using the phrase to conceal his drive for privilege. Nor, of course,
do they mount any kind of argument that the views Barr professes to believe
about religious liberty are actually wrong. Their assertions will have to
suffice.” Like the rape epidemic on college campuses that isn’t happening and
all those phony hate crimes, the risible belief that some sort of Christian
Taliban is waiting in the wings of American public life, ready to sweep in and
establish some sort of Margaret Atwood dystopia, requires no evidence to serve
its function, which is to lower the esteem of the Left’s political enemies and
to defame them.
Americans are perfectly able to distinguish between
hoaxes and crimes, between authentic political disagreement and intellectually
dishonest misrepresentation. The problem is that too many of them are so
besotted with tribalism and high on rage that they do not care. Such passions
always have characterized the demos, which is what makes democracy so
vulnerable to demagoguery. But a combination of factors — including, but not
limited to, the decline of political parties and changes in the business models
of media companies — have left the institutions that once countered the worst
of these tendencies either unable to do so, as in the case of the institutional
leadership of the two major political parties, or unwilling to do so, as in the
case of the New York Times et al.
A 19th-century politician once complained that we live
under a “government of newspapers,” but we are well on our way to something
much worse: a government of Twitter, which is, inevitably, a government of
lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment